Worth the licence fee?

think if I am right the licence fee is £145 I have just been reminded that I now have to start paying, as DH was over 75 he got free licence, it is something I could do without paying and have thought of getting rid of the tv, and just using catch up on the laptop, but its just not the same as sitting in front of the biggish tv screen.

rosequartz I do agree with what you say,, I have already had to cancel my house insurance/boiler cover,due to my financial position, and like you say the tv licence is! compulsory, unless like I have said I choose to get rid of the tv, although when GS comes round he doesn't watch the tv I do like him to have the choice...difficult decision as the tv is company when one is on your own, I know many like the radio, but the tv is visual.

Ceesnan- don't understand you comment about barging in? Anyway, to clarify, as I realise it wasn't clear, I meant a better range of programmes etc and with no licence fee. I know ther is a licence fee in Germany that is payable even if you only have a radio and it is used to fund public service channels. The problem with funding the BBC from General taxation is that it then politicises the issue. I accept it's partly politicised as Government can, and does, restrict the cost of the licence. As for its cost, of course I accept for some people that £145 is a lot and that they struggle with fuel costs etc but the real issue there is that pensions are not enough. Also, if better off pensioners didn't get the free licence, bus pass, winer fuel etc you could widen the net of pensioners who could get the licence free or put the pension up for those on a lower income. The BBC isn't perfect and there are concerns about salaries, pay offs etc but I still maintain it's great value for money and that it enables us to have a much higher standard of TV and especially radio than you get in countries with no licence fee and/ or no publicly funded chsnnels

I am due to have the free licence at the end of the year. Although I will accept this with gratitude, and I don't have an enormous pension, I am puzzled that at the moment I am deemed to be able to afford £145 but come November, I will be too poor!

I don't understand the earlier comment about Fox meeting people's needs

Or is that a subtle way of saying that people who object to the compulsory licence fee are intellectually inferior and those who support the BBC and the current way it is funded are somehow intellectually superior?

There is a lot of rubbish churned out by the BBC too and I am sure that people would have plenty of choice without ever watching BBC - and without watching rubbish!

Eloethan the salaries you quote are enormous, but people can choose whether or not to use the services of those companies.
The licence fee is compulsory whether you use the service or not, non-payment having resulted in prosecution, usually of people who can ill-afford the fee, let alone a fine.

We are not just talking about the cost to pensioners are we? I wasn't, anyway. I was thinking more of hard-up families and young people too - university students for instance, who need a licence for each room in halls of residence. They are less likely than older people to watch BBC programmes.

Pensioners age 75 and over do not need to pay the licence fee.
bikergran that must be hard to suddenly have to find the money again at a difficult time.

You can extend my argument to the whole population - but not sure about students! Hard up families - why aren't wages/benefits high enough for them
to afford £3 a week? Having a TV is a very cheap way of being entertained, educated, informed . The real issue is that if you abolish the licence, the bbc will have to do advertising ( in the middle of programmes) and the more competition for advertising revenue, the more likely that standards will fall in that less and less minority issues and interests will be covered. Also, viz tge Daily Telegraph, advertisers have unfettered power to influence content

The beeb are crafty, just as I have a rant about the licence they come up with Wolf hall, soon we will have Poldark, come May the French Open, then Queens and Wimbledon . How does one start the day without radio 4 and Today, end the day without the book reading . No Welsh news on SKY, unless it's a murder. Then there is Springwatch and Autumnwatch and must not forget Pointless , oh dear

yep! (I may have to stand outside with coat on and watch tv through neighbours window) (that's if they don't close the curtains)

biker!

You can pay monthly, you don't have to find the whole amount all at once.

biker, why don't you buy a streaming box, roku or now TV. I have just bought a roku 1 as I go to bed at 7.30pm and therefore I miss all the best that is on TV. It has all the catch up channels and lots more and is really easy to set up. If I can do it anyone can. Now I can catch up with Death in Paradise and the cookery programmes I have been missing since I cancelled Sky.

Eloethan

There are BBC celebrities/presenters who have salaries in the 'millions'.

Look at Jeremy Clarkson, Graham Norton to get you started. Oldies like Paxman and Garry Lineaker were paid by the millions too.

On top of wages they will have massive pension pots and expenses.

No public service employee should be paid a wage higher than the Prime Minister. His/her wage is pathetic in comparison to wages stumped up by bloated councils, civil servants, BBC, quango's etc. etc.

My DS enlightened me on empty 'detector' vans some time ago, one of the best con tricks ever apparently. He did try to explain why they could never have worked engineering and electronics-wise but lost me after about a minute...

You don't buy a licence to watch the BBC, you re licensed to operate a TV receiving station.

It's a shame, though, that now my licence is free, and I have the highest quality equipment there has ever been for domestic use... there is less than there has ever been that I want to watch!

Well I don't know about anyone else but I think that the people who run our gas and electricity companies and our banks are worth every single penny they are paid

hi Ana yes I will have a look at the pay monthly option, I keep meaning to do it and keep forgetting.
Hilda I do have a disc player with hard drive recorder so I am able to set the timer (when I remember) to record any programmes.thanks

bikergran we paid monthly for the tv licence.
We cancelled our boiler maintenance plan years ago as it became so expensive but we do get the boiler serviced and checked annually by a local firm, which we think is essential.
House insurance can be paid monthly as well, I think if you complain ask they may take the interest charge off.

You are absolutely right, Rosequartz. I no longer have to pay the licence fee as I am now 77. So, even better value, eh! [smile}.
But I paid it for many years, of course, and always considered it good value.

Pogs, my heart bleeds for prime ministers who are paid less than well-known broadcasters. Even more so for Tony Blair and the late Lady Thatcher whose management of their post-political careers netted them a multi-million fortune. I wonder if DC will be equally bankable. Oh not to worry - he and his wife already have private means.

Anno

My point was if you earn a wage that is provided by the state , tax payer, then for my my mind nobody should earn more than the Prime Minister.

Now obviously you and possibly others will view running the BBC , running a council, being on the board of a quango is more important than being the Prime Minister but that's your opinion.

I was not saying I thought the Prime Minister should be paid more, whoever he/she may be! I do however consider the decisions he/she has to make are far more important than any the Head of BBC will have to make yet the wagewage of our PM is rubbish by comparison.

I simply don't think paying somebody like Graham Norton a few million pounds a year wage is worth more than the PM. Both are paid from the public purse but hells bells the responsibilities are worlds apart.

These people are STARS though, POGS, what would our life be like without their presence gracing us on the screen in the corner?

People who work for the public sector - doctors, nurses, teachers, politicians, refuse collectors, lab technicians, porters, council employees, etc. etc., are taxpayers too.

People who pay into a private pension contribute a very significant - and disproportionate - amount to the high salaries of pension fund managers, similarly for the high salaries of CEOs of water companies, energy companies, transport companies, etc. etc. These are hardly non-essential things that we can choose to do without and yet we have no control over what these people are paid.

It seems to me the BBC can't win. If it tries to meet its public service remit of educating and informing as well as entertaining it is criticised for not receiving high enough viewing figures because it produces programmes that are too "worthy" or "niche". It is then told it needs to compete with the commercial channels, which means producing the sort of programmes that have mass appeal, employing people like Graham Norton, or producing dramas with "big names" in them. Presenters and actors, are, in general, no more altruistic than any other working person and are not willing to accept a significantly lower fee from the BBC when a commercial channel is offering a much higher sum.

The HSBC/Telegraph scandal, demonstrates how, aside from the influence of proprietors, commercial interests can affect what news a media outlet decides to cover or give prominence to.

I recognise that governments, through their control of the licence fee, can also apply pressure to the BBC but I think that is more easily remedied by, for instance, having a group independent of government to assess the case for possible price freezes/increases.

I do think there should be more lenience shown to those found not to have paid their licence fee, particularly when genuine hardship can be proved. Apparently, in Scotland people are often not fined but given a warning.